At Saint Benedict Center’s upcoming Conference, the topic upon which I will speak is “The Absolute Primacy of Jesus Christ and Its Implications for Our Crusade.” The topic of the present Ad Rem is related to the subject matter of that talk, so, by introducing it here, I can prepare my readership and my audience for both in one fell swoop.
A few issues ago, I announced,
I do hold to the so-called “Franciscan thesis” on one narrow point: Would the Incarnation have happened had not sin happened? Saint Thomas (and others before and after him) say No. Blessed Duns Scotus (and others before and after him) say Yes. On this point, Father Leonard Feeney and my mentor Brother Francis were both “Franciscans,” and so am I.
In addition to “the Franciscan thesis,” this position is also known as the “Scotist thesis,” after Blessed John Duns Scotus (1265/66-1308), the Friar Minor who articulated and defended it so capably. He did not originate the opinion, but he buttressed it about with argumentation that was indeed original, though drawn from traditional sources. Another name of this thesis, perhaps the most accurate way of naming it to its modern adherents, is “the Absolute Primacy of Christ.” The preference for this appellation will be understood when we get into the Scotist arguments for their position in a subsequent Ad Rem.
The issue is probably most often framed the way I did it in that quoted paragraph, above: “Would the Incarnation have happened had not sin happened?” But this is not the best way to frame it. At least not according to Father Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., whose exhaustive book, Why Jesus Christ?, I am currently reading thanks to the wonderful librarian at the Richmond Town Library and the miracle of interlibrary loan. (The book is sadly out of print.)
For Father Carol, this common formulation of the question is “unfortunate,” because “the problem of Christ’s predestination cannot be solved by appealing to premises embodying questions which are themselves insoluble” (p. 3). That is to say, the hypothetical question, entertaining as it does an economy that does not exist, is not addressed in Revelation and must be, therefore, theologically inconclusive — though it remains a legitimate subject of speculation. For Father Carol, the best way to frame the issue is to ask, “Whether in the present world-order (the only one willed by God) the Word’s Incarnation depended or not on the sin of our first parent.” Alternatively, we may ask, “Whether or not Christ and His Blessed Mother were efficaciously predestined to existence with a logical priority to all others” (p. 4).
In framing the issue this way, Father Carol avoids focusing his energies on answering a question upon which Divine Revelation is silent, and, instead, seeks to discover both the reasons for the Incarnation, and which of those reasons has the highest priority. This roots his theological inquiry in the real and not a merely hypothetical economy of salvation, and it has the added advantage of there being data from Revelation from which one might formulate cogent arguments.
Father Carol does not give a one-sided presentation of the question. Part one of his treatise is called “The Thomistic School,” and it goes on for some 108 pages, citing the words of Saint Thomas, of “Thomistic” theologians of various stripes, and their source material in Holy Scripture and the Fathers of the Church. He goes on to present the Thomistic thesis as it was articulated by later theologians. After reading this section, one may be completely convinced that the Angelic Doctor and his loyal disciples are not only right on the question, but unassailably so. In carrying on his work in this way, Father Carol imitates Saint Thomas himself (whom he frequently calls “the holy Doctor”), as that learned Dominican always presented the position he was arguing against in the best possible light.
Here are the texts of Saint Thomas that Father Carol presents on pages eight and nine of his work. Answering the question whether God would have become incarnate if Adam had not sinned, Saint Thomas affirms,
…on this question the truth can be known only by Him who, because He Himself willed it, was born and offered in sacrifice.
In that same work, the Commentary on the Sentences, Saint Thomas goes on:
Others, however, say that since not only redemption from sin, but also the exaltation of human nature and the consummation of the entire universe was accomplished by the Incarnation, therefore, even if there had been no sin, He would have become incarnate for these reasons, and this opinion can also be called probable.
We see here that Saint Thomas gives other possible reasons for the Incarnation, and that he considers it “probable” that those reasons would have been sufficient for the Incarnation to happen even if Adam had not sinned. This is in stark contrast to some later disciples of Saint Thomas, who became rigidly dogmatic on the point. While “rigidly dogmatic” may be a buzzword for progressivists who attack traditionalists, it is appropriate to use the term against those who turn what is not dogma into dogma. A theological opinion does not a dogma make, and Saint Thomas — whose own teacher, Saint Albert the Great, disagreed with him on the point — understood that.
In his Commentary on the First Epistle to Timothy, the Angelic Doctor remains hesitant to speak definitively:
This is not a very important question, because God ordained things to be accomplished as they have been accomplished. And we do not know what He would have ordained if He had not foreseen sin. Nevertheless, authoritative writers seem to state expressly that he would not have become incarnate if man had not sinned; I am inclined to accept this view.
Saint Thomas’ mature opinion — his “last and definitive word” according to Father Carol — is found in his final work, the Summa Theologiae (III, q. 1, a. 3.):
… it seems that our assent ought to be given rather to this [negative] opinion. For such things as depend on God’s will and are beyond the creature’s due, can be made known to us only by being revealed in Sacred Scripture. … Since everywhere in Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is mentioned as the reason for the Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say [“convenientius dicitur”] that the work of the Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin, so that, if sin had not existed, the Incarnation would not have come about.
Blessed John Duns Scotus and other defenders of the Absolute Primacy of Christ agree with the Angelic Doctor that “such things… can be made known to us only by being revealed in Sacred Scripture.” What they deny — as we will see later — is that the Incarnation was exclusively or even primarily “ordained by God as a remedy for sin” according to the Bible.
With this mention of Holy Writ, let us now proceed to the source material for the Thomistic thesis. Because my summary here cannot be exhaustive, I will pick a few of the twelve New Testament passages that Father Carol collects as proofs from Thomist authors (pp. 12-13):
- “The son of Man has come… to give his own life as a ransom for the many” (Mt. 20:28, Mk. 10:45).
- The angel tells Joseph that Mary is to have a son, “And you are to name him Jesus because he will save his people from their sins” (Mt. 1:21).
- “The Son of Man came to save that which had perished” (Mt. 18:11).
- “The Son of Man has come to search out and save what was lost” (Lk. 19:10).
- “You know well that the reason he revealed himself was to take away sins” (1 Jn. 3:5).
All considered, the texts that the Thomists present back up their Master’s proposition that, “Since everywhere in Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is mentioned as the reason for the Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say that the work of the Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin, so that, if sin had not existed, the Incarnation would not have come about.” It is a formidable array of arguments.
Next, we come to the Patristic arguments. Father Carol presents twenty-eight passages that are commonly brought out in support of the Thomistic thesis (pp. 12-13). Of these, he considers fourteen to be the strongest inasmuch as they seem to rule out the contrary opinion. Of these fourteen strongest passages, here are seven:
- Saint Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 190): “If man had not been in need of salvation, the Word of God would in no way have become man.”
- Saint Athanasius (d. 373): “Even if nothing had been created, nevertheless the Word of God existed and God was the Word. But the Word Itself would in no way have become man unless caused by man’s need.”
- Saint Gregory Nazianzen (d. 389): “What was the reason that God took on a human nature for us? Certainly in order to prepare our salvation. What other reason can be advanced?”
- Saint Ambrose of Milan (d. 397): “What was the cause of the Incarnation if not the redemption of the flesh that had sinned.”
- Saint John Chrysostom (d. 407): “There is no other reason for the dispensation but this only: he [God] saw us thrown to the ground, perishing, oppressed by the tyranny of death, and he had mercy on us.”
- Saint Augustine (d. 430): “If man had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have come.” “Why did he come into this world? In order to save sinners. There was no other reason for his coming into the world. It was not our merits but our sins that brought him down to this earth.”
- Saint John Damascene (d. 749): “If we had preserved our first union with God, we would never have been raised to a more noble and admirable union with him.”
Again, as with the scriptural passages above, this is an impressive array of citations — even in my truncated collection — that back up the Thomistic school in their position.
Father Carol does not leave it at Scripture and the Fathers; he cites magisterial and liturgical texts which can be used to argue the Thomistic case, as well as arguments from reason and passages from the writings of medieval theologians before and after Saint Thomas, including four notable Franciscans, e.g., Saint Thomas’ friend, Saint Bonaventure.
It is my plan to present the Scotist position next time.
Some might say that going into such a theological controversy in plain view of those who are not trained in theology could be dangerous, because it threatens to make religion look like a subjective thing. A simple member of the flock might, upon reviewing this material, take scandal and conclude, “Well, if the saints could disagree about something so fundamental, doesn’t this reduce the whole religion to a matter of opinion?” My answer to this objection is to say that this is precisely why we need to educate the faithful better to understand the difference between dogma and theological opinion. The Church has not yet settled the issue, and all true Catholics will — if the Church chooses to settle it — accept that definitive, infallible judgment. That is how it always has been. Meantime, let’s not confuse dogma with “not dogma.”
But beyond that, there is a deeper reason to look into these questions and ponder them. It goes back to the way men like Saint Thomas, Saint Bonaventure, and Blessed Duns Scotus learned, studied, and taught theology. Theological disputation — of a very disciplined and charitable sort — flourished in the European Universities of the High Middle Ages. Rather than screech at each other for being heretics, those who differed in their theological opinions on unresolved questions could debate the point, bringing forth their best arguments both in writing, as well as in live, moderated debates in halls full of theology students and masters. Those of us used to the lowbrow street theater that passes for “debate” in modern electoral politics would be amazed to see what a real debate looks like, and that there can be holy men on both sides of them. Saint Thomas and Saint Bonaventure at times strongly disagreed “professionally” as theologians. They also deeply loved and respected each other, as did their respective spiritual fathers, Saint Dominic and Saint Francis.
Welcome to the Universal Church, where that shibboleth of phony progressivism, “unity in diversity,” has actually been a reality for two thousand years!
The goal of such debate is the pursuit of truth and sanctity, not the scoring of points. Indeed, when someone on one side of a question carefully considers the arguments of those on the other side, he may either change, nuance, or modify his position to accommodate what he considers a reasonable objection to his thesis. Thus, the virtuous theologian can grow and develop. And they did. Further, this work is of service to the Church: In her magisterial interventions, the Church considers the contributions of these differing “schools,” so the task of the holy theologian is not wasted — not even at a practical level.
On this question of the reasons for the Incarnation, prayerfully studying and meditating on the matter — and seeing why the great theologians said what they did on the question — can help us,
…to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth. To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God. — Eph. 3:18-19
